Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Jill Havern 20.04.10 21:08
Up until recently I had discounted Michael Shrimpton’s intelligence report as being fake, as in its authenticity as a serious JIC submission it simply did not stand up to close scrutiny.
It does appear though after speaking with various people that it was a genuine and serious report submitted as Shrimpton admits as a companion and not replacement for the proper intelligence report that may have been submitted as a matter of routine to the JIC. There are many aspects that I personally found to be unbelievable as an intelligence report hence why it was unanimously dismissed on the site. Other sites will no doubt highlight their key areas of speciality in the report but I am wanting to draw your attention to certain claims made in the report that do fall under an area that I have a keen interest in.
Firstly taken from the report is the proposed method by Shrimpton is effecting Madeleine’s removal from Belgium once she has been secured:
“Tactical surprise could not be achieved. It would need to be a Special Forces led commando raid with air support (the British people would expect nothing less if told the Belgians had refused to help). Our forces would most likely have to fight their way out, protecting Madeleine to their utmost, runways would have to be disabled with JP233s and Coningsby’s new Typhoon F1s would be needed for a CAP.”
As was pointed out to me by a friend who has a great knowledge and understanding of munitions he immediately said that the deployment of JP233s would never be tolerated on the European mainland. In fact once you look up for yourselves what these are designed to do then you would have to agree that any country dropping these sorts of bombs over Belgian runways and populated areas would be considered an act of war. Why Shrimpton believes that to ensure a safe passage for Madeleine’s rescuers would involve grounding all nearby aircraft by bombing the runways is not explained. It is simply farfetched and there exist far better ways of giving close unit support that doesn’t involve levelling half a country in the process. Thank you to The General for pointing this particular point out.
The report contains more than it’s far share of contentious points and when delving into the mentioned naval history, in particular to the U boats it really does become a case of how deep do you think the rabbit hole goes. If you take Shrimpton at face value then there seems to be a great deception at the heart of the Kriegsmarine records and also allied shipping manifests. It is this particular area of the report I would now like to focus on.
Shrimpton states the following:
“These will almost certainly be part of the small fleet of Type XXI long-range transport U-Boats ordered by German Naval Intelligence in 1943 from the F Schichau yard in Danzig, built under cover (these are the ‘missing’ Type XXIs U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550, U-3042 and U-3043, with a reduced torpedo load and large cargo hold forward, they were also adapted for carrying special passengers). One or more of these boats, and the Naomi Corlett, appear to be using an old covert U-Boat base in Sao Tome and Principe as a trans-shipment point. This base was used by boats such as Leutnant Jost Metzler’s U-69 in 1941 (U-69 had two logs, like the KMS Graf Spee, one to show where she had been and one to show where she had really been.) Typical cocaine load is about 50 metric tons.”
What Shrimpton appears to get right is that he correctly identifies the list of U boats being type XX1, the rest as he states it is wholly inaccurate.
U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550, U-3042 and U-3043 are not ‘missing’ in anyway. U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550 were commissioned between 1944 and 1945 and construction began at the Blohm & Voss, Hamburg ship yards not as Shrimpton states at the F Schichau yard in Danzig. U-3042 and U-3043 were commissioned in December 1944 and construction was done at the AG Weser, Bremen shipyards.
All of these type XXI boats were either destroyed in the pens due to sustained allied bombing or destroyed whilst on the slips.
U-2532 was sunk by bombs at the yard during an air raid on Hamburg on 31 Dec, 1944 and again in 17 Jan, 1945.
U-2547 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-2549 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-2550 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-3042 was damaged during an air raid while on the slips on 22 Feb, 1945.
U-3043 was damaged during an air raid while on the slips on 22 Feb, 1945.
The historical records prove that Shrimpton is mistaken in stating that these boats were in some way missing or unaccounted for, unless of course, the Kriegsmarine were falsifying records on allied bombing sorties and their consequences.
Finally Shrimpton mentions U-69 under the command of Kptlt. Jost Metzler during 1941. Again on this point Shrimpton is mistaken in suggesting that U-69 was involved in clandestine covert operations and using a covert pen in Sao Tome and Principe. Historical records from both the Kriegsmarine and allied shipping manifests prove that U-69 was annoyingly active for allied shipping in the Atlantic and only the once conducting patrols off the coast of Africa from 21May until 3rd July 1941. If as Shrimpton suggests, the logs were falsified to cover up the U boats real activities, what U boat was in fact sinking boats and why are communications radioed through from the BdU also falsified?
As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on how deep you think the rabbit hole goes and on this particular issue and knowing the accuracy of the records made available after the war I am far more inclined to put my trust in the official records rather than a report that on these key issues highlighted do not bear up to close scrutiny and fail to record even the most easily researched data such as where the boats were constructed.
------
And a comment by Blackwatch:
Blackwatch From emails I exchanged with Shrimpton, he alleges that this is the actual report he supplied to the former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee (either John Holmes or Pauline Neville-Jones, I suspect). He says this particular version was prepared specifically for the British Prime Minister at this time (he says he knows this because he used deliberate 'typos' to identify the reports in the event of any leaks). Why such an 'informal' report would be prepared for the Prime Minister in waiting is anyone's guess.
Given that several of the claims he makes in the report had already been emailed into Leicester Police Authority by Shrimpton as early as May 7th, suggests this story doesn't quite ring true (you can view these emails from Shrimpton in the Police Files). The report we see now appears to have been completed a month later in June (but I could be wrong about the date).
Whilst it is clearly a work of fiction, it seems various groups went to considerable lengths to substantiate his crazy claims. The hoax sightings in Belgium and France certainly seem like attempts to flesh it out, and it possible that the recruitment of Control Risks Group was a similar attempt to make it look like the UK Government had brought in the SAS to track down Madeleine (when they seem to have been more interested in intimidating witnesses).
Not surprisingly Shrimpton arrives at the conclusion that the Labour Government will fail Madeleine (he submits a follow-up to this report via Tony Bennett on the Democracy UK Forum, stating this very thing). But given Shrimpton's far-right leanings - this seems inevitable.
What's really interesting is this: if Shrimpton did receive a request from either John Holmes or Pauline Neville-Jones (whether it was serious or just a device) then it is interesting to note that both had dealings with Kevin Halligen and Inkerman.
It seems to be that we might be looking at a right-wing ploy to kill the popularity of the Labour Government through a cleverly conceived device: have Madeleine disappear and then have Brown and his ministers blamed for failing to act decisively.
But of course, they might not have accounted for a good deal of resistance and similarly clever tricks from the Brown camp.
What better way to disarm this threat than by making the parents the main suspects and having the whole monstrous caper shelved.
Mitchell's shimmy to the right at this particular period in time is interesting from this perspective.
http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=397:madeleine-mccann-shrimpton-report-u-boats-and-jp233s&catid=37:press-articles#JOSC_TOP
It does appear though after speaking with various people that it was a genuine and serious report submitted as Shrimpton admits as a companion and not replacement for the proper intelligence report that may have been submitted as a matter of routine to the JIC. There are many aspects that I personally found to be unbelievable as an intelligence report hence why it was unanimously dismissed on the site. Other sites will no doubt highlight their key areas of speciality in the report but I am wanting to draw your attention to certain claims made in the report that do fall under an area that I have a keen interest in.
Firstly taken from the report is the proposed method by Shrimpton is effecting Madeleine’s removal from Belgium once she has been secured:
“Tactical surprise could not be achieved. It would need to be a Special Forces led commando raid with air support (the British people would expect nothing less if told the Belgians had refused to help). Our forces would most likely have to fight their way out, protecting Madeleine to their utmost, runways would have to be disabled with JP233s and Coningsby’s new Typhoon F1s would be needed for a CAP.”
As was pointed out to me by a friend who has a great knowledge and understanding of munitions he immediately said that the deployment of JP233s would never be tolerated on the European mainland. In fact once you look up for yourselves what these are designed to do then you would have to agree that any country dropping these sorts of bombs over Belgian runways and populated areas would be considered an act of war. Why Shrimpton believes that to ensure a safe passage for Madeleine’s rescuers would involve grounding all nearby aircraft by bombing the runways is not explained. It is simply farfetched and there exist far better ways of giving close unit support that doesn’t involve levelling half a country in the process. Thank you to The General for pointing this particular point out.
The report contains more than it’s far share of contentious points and when delving into the mentioned naval history, in particular to the U boats it really does become a case of how deep do you think the rabbit hole goes. If you take Shrimpton at face value then there seems to be a great deception at the heart of the Kriegsmarine records and also allied shipping manifests. It is this particular area of the report I would now like to focus on.
Shrimpton states the following:
“These will almost certainly be part of the small fleet of Type XXI long-range transport U-Boats ordered by German Naval Intelligence in 1943 from the F Schichau yard in Danzig, built under cover (these are the ‘missing’ Type XXIs U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550, U-3042 and U-3043, with a reduced torpedo load and large cargo hold forward, they were also adapted for carrying special passengers). One or more of these boats, and the Naomi Corlett, appear to be using an old covert U-Boat base in Sao Tome and Principe as a trans-shipment point. This base was used by boats such as Leutnant Jost Metzler’s U-69 in 1941 (U-69 had two logs, like the KMS Graf Spee, one to show where she had been and one to show where she had really been.) Typical cocaine load is about 50 metric tons.”
What Shrimpton appears to get right is that he correctly identifies the list of U boats being type XX1, the rest as he states it is wholly inaccurate.
U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550, U-3042 and U-3043 are not ‘missing’ in anyway. U-2532, U-2547, U-2549, U-2550 were commissioned between 1944 and 1945 and construction began at the Blohm & Voss, Hamburg ship yards not as Shrimpton states at the F Schichau yard in Danzig. U-3042 and U-3043 were commissioned in December 1944 and construction was done at the AG Weser, Bremen shipyards.
All of these type XXI boats were either destroyed in the pens due to sustained allied bombing or destroyed whilst on the slips.
U-2532 was sunk by bombs at the yard during an air raid on Hamburg on 31 Dec, 1944 and again in 17 Jan, 1945.
U-2547 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-2549 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-2550 was bombed while being assembled on 11 March, 1945.
U-3042 was damaged during an air raid while on the slips on 22 Feb, 1945.
U-3043 was damaged during an air raid while on the slips on 22 Feb, 1945.
The historical records prove that Shrimpton is mistaken in stating that these boats were in some way missing or unaccounted for, unless of course, the Kriegsmarine were falsifying records on allied bombing sorties and their consequences.
Finally Shrimpton mentions U-69 under the command of Kptlt. Jost Metzler during 1941. Again on this point Shrimpton is mistaken in suggesting that U-69 was involved in clandestine covert operations and using a covert pen in Sao Tome and Principe. Historical records from both the Kriegsmarine and allied shipping manifests prove that U-69 was annoyingly active for allied shipping in the Atlantic and only the once conducting patrols off the coast of Africa from 21May until 3rd July 1941. If as Shrimpton suggests, the logs were falsified to cover up the U boats real activities, what U boat was in fact sinking boats and why are communications radioed through from the BdU also falsified?
As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on how deep you think the rabbit hole goes and on this particular issue and knowing the accuracy of the records made available after the war I am far more inclined to put my trust in the official records rather than a report that on these key issues highlighted do not bear up to close scrutiny and fail to record even the most easily researched data such as where the boats were constructed.
------
And a comment by Blackwatch:
Blackwatch From emails I exchanged with Shrimpton, he alleges that this is the actual report he supplied to the former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee (either John Holmes or Pauline Neville-Jones, I suspect). He says this particular version was prepared specifically for the British Prime Minister at this time (he says he knows this because he used deliberate 'typos' to identify the reports in the event of any leaks). Why such an 'informal' report would be prepared for the Prime Minister in waiting is anyone's guess.
Given that several of the claims he makes in the report had already been emailed into Leicester Police Authority by Shrimpton as early as May 7th, suggests this story doesn't quite ring true (you can view these emails from Shrimpton in the Police Files). The report we see now appears to have been completed a month later in June (but I could be wrong about the date).
Whilst it is clearly a work of fiction, it seems various groups went to considerable lengths to substantiate his crazy claims. The hoax sightings in Belgium and France certainly seem like attempts to flesh it out, and it possible that the recruitment of Control Risks Group was a similar attempt to make it look like the UK Government had brought in the SAS to track down Madeleine (when they seem to have been more interested in intimidating witnesses).
Not surprisingly Shrimpton arrives at the conclusion that the Labour Government will fail Madeleine (he submits a follow-up to this report via Tony Bennett on the Democracy UK Forum, stating this very thing). But given Shrimpton's far-right leanings - this seems inevitable.
What's really interesting is this: if Shrimpton did receive a request from either John Holmes or Pauline Neville-Jones (whether it was serious or just a device) then it is interesting to note that both had dealings with Kevin Halligen and Inkerman.
It seems to be that we might be looking at a right-wing ploy to kill the popularity of the Labour Government through a cleverly conceived device: have Madeleine disappear and then have Brown and his ministers blamed for failing to act decisively.
But of course, they might not have accounted for a good deal of resistance and similarly clever tricks from the Brown camp.
What better way to disarm this threat than by making the parents the main suspects and having the whole monstrous caper shelved.
Mitchell's shimmy to the right at this particular period in time is interesting from this perspective.
http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=397:madeleine-mccann-shrimpton-report-u-boats-and-jp233s&catid=37:press-articles#JOSC_TOP
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28864
Activity : 41591
Likes received : 7715
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Jill Havern 20.04.10 21:09
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28864
Activity : 41591
Likes received : 7715
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by chillyheat 20.12.13 0:15
The link just goes to registration
Is there anyway I could view these posts. Many Thanks
chillyheat- Posts : 814
Activity : 884
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Guest 20.12.13 0:21
Blacksmith???? Yeh gods ...
Guest- Guest
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Guest 20.12.13 0:29
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t4273-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-according-to-barrister-michael-shrimpton?highlight=shrimpton
Unfortunately you need to be a forum member to access the link - and no new members are being admitted.
The original link was deleted when Michael Shrimpton was banned from the site.
Unfortunately you need to be a forum member to access the link - and no new members are being admitted.
The original link was deleted when Michael Shrimpton was banned from the site.
Guest- Guest
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by jozi 20.12.13 7:35
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t4273-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-according-to-barrister-michael-shrimpton?highlight=shrimpton
Unfortunately you need to be a forum member to access the link - and no new members are being admitted.
The original link was deleted when Michael Shrimpton was banned from the site.
I'm a member there but it just said nothing of that topic could be found.
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Guest 20.12.13 8:24
ChillyHeat wrote:
The link just goes to registration
Is there anyway I could view these posts. Many Thanks
Luckily for you some of them have been copied and pasted to this forum
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t875-michael-shrimpton-s-posts-from-missing-madeleine-forum?highlight=shrimpton
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/search?search_keywords=shrimpton
Guest- Guest
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Bishop Brennan 20.12.13 9:28
I've seen a few of these "reports" over the years floating around the internet. The subject matter varies, but the style of report remains the same: complex, mysterious, almost meaningless, but with a few references to the subject matter. They are of course nonsense of the highest order. In fact, looking at the syntax, they may well be computer generated.
Bishop Brennan- Posts : 695
Activity : 920
Likes received : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by Guest 20.12.13 10:05
jozi wrote:No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t4273-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-according-to-barrister-michael-shrimpton?highlight=shrimpton
Unfortunately you need to be a forum member to access the link - and no new members are being admitted.
The original link was deleted when Michael Shrimpton was banned from the site.
I'm a member there but it just said nothing of that topic could be found.
That's strange Jozi, the link works for me and I can read all 24 pages if I want to - not sure I can face them at the moment though!
Guest- Guest
Re: Madeleine McCann Shrimpton Report: U-Boats and JP233's
by jozi 20.12.13 14:08
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:jozi wrote:No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t4273-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-according-to-barrister-michael-shrimpton?highlight=shrimpton
Unfortunately you need to be a forum member to access the link - and no new members are being admitted.
The original link was deleted when Michael Shrimpton was banned from the site.
I'm a member there but it just said nothing of that topic could be found.
That's strange Jozi, the link works for me and I can read all 24 pages if I want to - not sure I can face them at the moment though!
Just got into the link NFWTD after trying again thanks, silly me
jozi- Posts : 710
Activity : 733
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15
Similar topics» Once again, barrister Michael Shrimpton repeats his absurd allegations about the murder of Madeleine McCann
» Podcasts: Madeleine McCann
» Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who claimed Madeleine McCann was kidnapped and killed in December 2008, was placed on the Sex Offenders Register in 2012 for having indecent images of young boys on his computer
» US REPORT: Madeleine McCann mystery solved
» Theresa May 'didn't tell truth' about Madeleine McCann report while under oath.
» Podcasts: Madeleine McCann
» Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who claimed Madeleine McCann was kidnapped and killed in December 2008, was placed on the Sex Offenders Register in 2012 for having indecent images of young boys on his computer
» US REPORT: Madeleine McCann mystery solved
» Theresa May 'didn't tell truth' about Madeleine McCann report while under oath.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
